Jesus' death accomplished salvation for the non-elect

[Hammster]

The elect aren't condemned because the work of the cross has been applied to them by faith.

Through faith. That's the temporal part.

After Jesus atoned for their sins on the cross and prior to belief they were still perishing, under God's wrath, and stood condemned, wouldn't you say?

A consistent Arminian (Open Theist) would say yes. But not I.

John 3:16-19
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

Pretty basic stuff.

Exactly.

 

[Hammster]

It is unfortunate that many Reformed today think that the Elect were never condemned.

Paul said that they were condemned:

And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

The historic Reformed faith says that they were condemned:

IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify the elect; and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins and rise again for their justification; nevertheless they are NOT justified UNTIL the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.

There's a difference between having the nature of a child of wrath and being a child of wrath.

 

[rogueapologist]

Clare, you said the penalty due to man's sin is ETERNAL punishment. Then you made the statement that Jesus PAID the penalty for man.

If I'm not mistaken, Jesus DID NOT fully pay for man's sins. If Jesus paid ETERNAL punishment for man's sins, He would still be paying the penalty today and forever.

If Jesus paid the penalty of 'three days' in hell, then this must be the punishment for man's sins, not ETERNAL punishment.

So, either man stays three days in hell for his sins, or Jesus didn't pay the full penalty. Care to comment.

Good point. And furthermore, if the cross is about God satisfying God's own "need" for the "penalty" of sin to be paid, why is it "just" for God to transfer the penalty to Christ, but not "just' to simply ignore the penalty? The Reformed keep saying that sin "has" to be punished, that God "has" to punish sin in order to be just...yet they provide no meaningful reasons for this.

And if it's simply a matter of God punishing someone--ANYONE--to satisfy God's anger against sin, why use the cross? Why not just kill Godself in Christ in secret, in eternity? Would have a been a lot less drama that way.

 

[Arcoe]

I guess you don't understand the intent of the question.

Or, you have no answer.

 

[Hammster]

Or, you have no answer.

It's my OP. I wasn't making a positive argument but asking a question based upon what another member said.

But if you want to start an OP and ask those questions, I'm sure you'll get some participants.

 

[Jack Terrence]

There's a difference between having the nature of a child of wrath and being a child of wrath.

And that difference is...?

 

[travelah]

You wasted a lot of time with an errant assumption. I hold to the penal substitution theory.

 

[Hammster]

You wasted a lot of time with an errant assumption. I hold to the penal substitution theory.

Who? Me or the person I was quoting? (It would help if you'd use the quote feature).

 

[Hammster]

And that difference is...?

While the elect and non-elect have the same nature, the elect are never in danger of condemnation.

 

[Clare73]

Clare, you said the penalty due to man's sin is ETERNAL punishment. Then you made the statement that Jesus PAID the penalty for man.

If I'm not mistaken, Jesus DID NOT fully pay for man's sins.
If Jesus paid ETERNAL punishment for man's sins, He would still be paying the penalty today and forever.

Where did that godless notion come from?

You fail to apprehend the infinite difference between Jesus as God/man and man as sinner.
The merit of Jesus is infinite.

Eternal damnation is eternal separation from God.
Jesus' words indicate he was separated from God on the cross.

The infinite merit of Jesus covers the eternal punishment of separation from God, for all who trust in his propitiation to forgive their sin.

Likewise, the infinite merit of Jesus' sinless life provides righteousness for all who believe in him.

The word of God in Ro 3:25-26 states that Jesus paid the penalty for the sin of those who believe in him.

Are you in a position to tell God what Jesus has to do to pay the penalty for their sin?

I don't think so.

 

[Clare73]

Good point. And furthermore, if the cross is about God satisfying God's own "need" for the "penalty" of sin to be paid, why is it "just" for God to transfer the penalty to Christ, but not "just' to simply ignore the penalty? The Reformed keep saying that sin "has" to be punished, that God "has" to punish sin in order to be just...yet they provide no meaningful reasons for this.

Don't need to. . .the word of God in Ro 3:25-26 is clear that it is so.

And if it's simply a matter of God punishing someone--ANYONE--to satisfy God's anger against sin,
why use the cross? Why not just kill Godself in Christ in secret, in eternity? Would have a been a lot less drama that way.

That's God's call, you will have to take it up with him.

His word in Ro 3:25-26 states that it is what he did.

 

[rogueapologist]

Don't need to. . .the word of God in Ro 3:25-26 is clear that it is so.

Hmm, not really. Romans 3:25-26 say nothing about the "requirement" of penalty for sin. Perhaps you should read the verses again, and then try to answer my question if you are able.

That's God's call, you will have to take it up with him.

His word in Ro 3:25-26 states that it is what he did.

Also not relevant to my question. Your theology obviously assumes some kind of "why", so what is it?

 

[rogueapologist]

Where did that godless notion come from?

Why is this a "godless" notion? Given the implications of your theology, I think this is a perfectly reasonable question. If you can't answer the question, just say so.

You fail to apprehend the infinite difference between Jesus as God/man and man as sinner.

Apprehending the difference has nothing to do with the question asked of you. Why don't you stop dodging and answer?

There is no Biblical basis for equating the one sinless life of Jesus with the sinless life of one man.

Fair enough, but I would say that there is no biblical basis for any word that you've said thus far. Simply saying this, however, doesn't make it meaningful. So how about getting back to answering the questions that have been posed to you?

Are you in a position to tell God what Jesus has to do to pay the penalty for their sin?

I don't think so.

But you are? Interesting.

 

[Clare73]

You wasted a lot of time with an errant assumption. I hold to the penal substitution theory.

Yeah. . .right. And I own the Brooklyn Bridge.

You may hold it now, but you didn't in the following,
so looks like no time was wasted with an errant assumption.

Scripture is not theory.

Ro 3:25-26 is not theory, it is the word of God.

Would you like to provide a consistent and Biblical explanation of the questions regarding Ro 3:25-26?

Scripture is not theoretical but Atonement theories are unless you are prepared to demonstrate that penal satisfaction/substitution has the imprimatur of Vincents rule of Christian orthodoxy.

Moreover, in the catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. - Vincent of Lerins : “The Commonitories”
​

Of course it does not since penal substitution is itself a modification of Anselm's satisfaction theory.

To your question, I will pass. Several atonement theories can make profitable use of the same passage including Christus Victor and Anselm's Satisfaction. There are four general classes of atonement theory, not one and
no one sect has an infallible lock on such interpretive theology.

Thy words doth betray thee.

 

[Clare73]

Hmm, not really. Romans 3:25-26 say nothing about the "requirement" of penalty for sin. Perhaps you should read the verses again, and then try to answer my question if you are able.

Present that response as part of a consistent and Biblical explanation of the questions proposed on Ro 3:25-26, and you will have the answer to your question.

Also not relevant to my question.

It is most relevant to your question.

Your theology obviously assumes some kind of "why", so what is it?

The assumption is yours.

My theology is the word of God, and assume nothing.

And where the word of God makes an end to teaching, I make an end to learning.

 

[rogueapologist]

Present that response as part of a consistent and Biblical explanation of the questions proposed on Ro 3:25-26, and you will have the answer to your question.

I already did. You can go back and re-read it, if you'd like.

It is most relevant to your question.

You are entitled to your opinion.

The assumption is yours.

My theology is the word of God, and assume nothing.

LoL, yes, I don't doubt you truly believe that. However, simply stating something so patently naive doesn't make it true or meaningful.

And where the word of God makes an end to teaching, I make an end to learning.

Then you will certainly find what you set out to seek, since you are effectively your own teacher in such a scenario.

 

[Clare73]

Why is this a "godless" notion? Given the implications of your theology, I think this is a perfectly reasonable question. If you can't answer the question, just say so.

Apprehending the difference has nothing to do with the question asked of you. Why don't you stop dodging and answer?

Fair enough, but I would say that there is no biblical basis for any word that you've said thus far. Simply saying this, however, doesn't make it meaningful. So how about getting back to answering the questions that have been posed to you?
But you are? Interesting.

You were given the Biblical answers to your questions in the following.
You just don't like the answers.

Clare, you said the penalty due to man's sin is ETERNAL punishment. Then you made the statement that Jesus PAID the penalty for man.

If I'm not mistaken, Jesus DID NOT fully pay for man's sins.
If Jesus paid ETERNAL punishment for man's sins, He would still be paying the penalty today and forever.

Where did that godless notion come from?

You fail to apprehend the infinite difference between Jesus as God/man and man as sinner.
The merit of Jesus is infinite.

Eternal damnation is eternal separation from God.
Jesus' words indicate he was separated from God on the cross.

The infinite merit of Jesus covers the eternal punishment of separation from God, for all who trust in his propitiation to forgive their sin.

Likewise, the infinite merit of Jesus' sinless life provides righteousness for all who believe in him.

The word of God in Ro 3:25-26 states that Jesus paid the penalty for the sin of those who believe in him.

Are you in a position to tell God what Jesus has to do to pay the penalty for their sin?

I don't think so.

 

[rogueapologist]

You were given the Biblical answers to your questions in the following.
You just don't like the answers.

You're right, I don't like your answers because they are not biblical, notwithstanding your ardent (if naive and unsubstantiated) claims to the contrary.

Rather, what you have presented is pure and unadulterated opinion. You claim to interpret the Scriptures without bias, but nothing could be further from the truth. We all bring myriad philosophical presuppositions to bear upon the Scriptures, and this baggage invariably affects the outcomes of our interpretations. If you believe you are immune, I can only pity your naivety.

 

[Clare73]

My theology is the word of God, and assumes nothing.

LoL, yes, I don't doubt you truly believe that. However, simply stating something so patently naive doesn't make it true or meaningful.

Until you show where it is not the word of God, what you state is patently naive, and is neither true nor meaningful.

And where the word of God makes an end to teaching, I must make an end to learning.

Then you will certainly find what you set out to seek, since you are effectively your own teacher in such a scenario.

Effectively. . .NOT!

 

[rogueapologist]

Until you show where it is not the word of God, what you state is patently naive, and is neither true nor meaningful.


Effectively. . .NOT!

Yawn. Repeating what I say is hardly an argument. Enjoy your myopia.